Video: Michelle versus HuffPo editor on O’Reilly

posted at 9:13 pm on March 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Wasn’t much of a debate, I’m afraid: O’R did most of the talking, Sekoff ended up agreeing that bloggers should note when they’ve substantially redacted a post after it’s been published (as Charles Karel Bouley has now done, although he hadn’t originally), and the rest devolved into yet another round of “when is it fair to judge a blog by its commenters?” The sage of Puppetland took it upon himself to draw up some guidelines a few weeks ago, but unfortunately for Sekoff they do not redound to HuffPo’s advantage.

My own rule of thumb in this area is to go by word of mouth. The only two sites on the left whose stench wafts consistently over the fence into our yard are HuffPo and dKos, although whether that’s because they’re unusually rotten or because they’re the biggest blogs in America and thus produce more garbage along with more of everything else, I’m not sure. Anyway, not a particularly interesting subject but it sounds like O’R wants to have another go of it on Monday, so look forward to that.

I disagree, I’m rarely (if ever) a cheerleader, but Michelle owned that dude.

I would however liked to have seen a double segment, so they could get in to how the HuffingtonPost, in preparation for the hate and deathwishes for Republicans regularly seen in their comments, they’ve just not allowed comments on certain posts where they know the comments would be particularly embarassing for them (revealing what they’re about, if this is what their audience consists of). Other times when they’ve left comments open and the death wishes were still bountiful, they’ve stealthily removed comments, while leaving up the moderately civil ones.

True that pjcomix. Course this is your area of expertise so you’d know. I like your site and drop by for the sweet sweet crazy. I don’t think you get the recognition you deserve.

Michelle pwn3d the HuffPo guy, and O’reilly got good shots in too.

I’ve said it for ages, but the left is gonna get exposed for their antiamericanism, socialism, trutherism and antisemitism in a big way, and its gonna hurt the left bad. That said, expect them to try and dredge up anything to tar this site and Michelle, and you know they’ll focus on LGF and the FReepers.

And I thought his concession to amend the post was, in fact, particularly interesting.

Michelle on March 30, 2007 at 9:26 PM

That’s why I say, despite not usually being anyone’s cheerleader, you owned that guy… You basically forced him t odo that. Just like the time O’Reilly forced Jane Fleming to admit that she’d have kept on Edwards’ anti-Christian bloggers, but fired ones who’d said anything anti-gay or anti-black in the past. You properly boxed him in and forced him to choose a path.

I’d still like to have seen this go in a few other areas (as explain in my previous comment), but this was still a great beating, and one of my favorite segments that you’ve been on. I’m kind of shocked that AP wasn’t that impressed with the segment.

Just saw the segment on Fox. It was pretty good but Bill really blew it at one point when he seemed surprised that just anyone would be allowed to make comments on a blog and that they would post immediately.

Sekoff obviously was not telling the truth when he said inappropriate comments are rare. We all know what the language is like on the lefties’ websites.

That said, there are those on all forums/blogs, both right and left who have a hard time thinking of a substitute for the “f” word. I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

One other thing – O’Reilly said he’s not an “Internet guy” and that it’s a waste of his time. Note to Bill: You may want to consider getting with the program. You can’t talk about those horrible left-wing websites if you don’t actually visit them. Nor can you mutter something under your breath about “kool aid right-wingers” just to be fair and balanced in your comments without visiting the right side. I asked him who was on that kool aid right-wing list of his. Rather than answering, he did the polls. Who is the farthest left? Who is the farthest right? I wouldn’t even vote in the 2nd one. None of them are radicals. I just wished he’d answered my question instead of “letting the folks decide.”

So if Bouley removed that content because he recognized that it was objectionable, why did he try to defend it in the comments? I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure out how these people think.

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM

They don’t think, Jim. If they did, they’d understand why what they say and do is encouraging the terrorists and why their words are causing kids in Portland to think it’s ok to burn effigies of our troops.

Sekoff obviously was not telling the truth when he said inappropriate comments are rare. We all know what the language is like on the lefties’ websites.

That said, there are those on all forums/blogs, both right and left who have a hard time thinking of a substitute for the “f” word. I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

One other thing – O’Reilly said he’s not an “Internet guy” and that it’s a waste of his time. Note to Bill: You may want to consider getting with the program. You can’t talk about those horrible left-wing websites if you don’t actually visit them. Nor can you mutter something under your breath about “kool aid right-wingers” just to be fair and balanced in your comments without visiting the right side. I asked him who was on that kool aid right-wing list of his. Rather than answering, he did the polls. Who is the farthest left? Who is the farthest right? I wouldn’t even vote in the 2nd one. None of them are radicals. I just wished he’d answered my question instead of “letting the folks decide.”

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

To clarify, I’m not someone who cares about language, I care about sentiment. I use the F-word all the time, and find the whole idea that some words are swears and others aren’t pretty stupid, just because someone somewhere along the line decided the half dozen or so words were not okay.

I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

While HA might be better than most, they’ll find something and go ZOMG!!!! LOOK LOOK MALKIN AND HER SHEEPLE ARE FULL OF TEH HATE!!!!!111!!!1!!1!eleventy!!1

And the media will do its own version of Rolling Thunder and start doing hit pieces, -Well there were some bad thing on the liberal blogs and list one mildly bad thing, then go BUT LOOK AT THESE WINGNUTS!!!! and find a few quotes either out of context or admittedly bad ones despite the fact that conservative commentators are’t nearly as bad as the left. Guarantee you. So be ready for it, commenters, Malkin and HA crew alike. But we have to keep exposing the left for what it is.

I actually thought the HuffPo guy did a good job articulating and defending his position and site. If all I had to go on was this interview (which, I’m sure, is what most of the O’Reilly audience will only get) then I would have no idea how loony and despicable that site is. I was mildly disappointed with Michelle for not citing the Cheney comments a couple of weeks ago, among other incidents. I don’t think these blogs were exposed nearly as much as they could have.

Next time make a screencap. We have to start screencapping everything, because they’re gonna get better at tamping down the sweet crazy because its starting to go mainstream.

I was mildly disappointed with Michelle for not citing the Cheney comments a couple of weeks ago, among other incidents. I don’t think these blogs were exposed nearly as much as they could have.

Patriot33 on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Look, its a start, and its a short segment. There’s a crack in the dike, and a trickle that the left is trying to patch, but the whole thing is gonna blow wide open, its just gonna take time as the left tries everything to stop it. They’re terrified at the prospect of the antisemitism, antichristian, socialistic and antiamericanism getting out. Leftism is about hiding reality and creating illusion, and this has their leadership terrified. It has to.

Michelle totally owned that debate, and to do him one better, noted she has two websites, one of which allows comments. Mr O was correct that HuffPo needs to have filters on certain language. Certainly Hot Air does. It can be policed, and should be, to prevent foul and obscene comments from ever getting any “air” time. One thing I’ve noticed about Hot Air is that offensive commentors are banned. I don’t notice this on HuffPo.

I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

I realize I already commented on the whole F-word thing in response to you earlier, but I just glanced at this sentence again, and realize I’m not sure what you mean… Perhaps I don’t remember writing it, or perhaps you misunderstood me or something, but I didn’t say I thought HotAir was going to be scrutinized. What am I missing here?

It speaks volumes how they wouldn’t even allow comments Tuesday afer the story about Tony Snow was posted.

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Ditto, JWF. Hot Air is one of the hottest blogs in the right-o-sphere, they periodically have “open registration,” and anybody who goes over the line risks banishment. Result? No flame wars, no death threats (those they get by e-mail), and therefore no “gotcha” fodder for the lefties to use.

By the way, JWF, you’re doing good with your blog. Averaging over 300 hits a day after less than five months is a pretty good accomplishment for an anonymous blogger. But you’d do even better if you had an e-mail link so that people could send you tips. Trust me.

“I actually thought the HuffPo guy did a good job articulating and defending his position ”

He was doing okay until the conversation came around to why the posting stayed up so long (not the comments but the posting itself). The part where he said when an offensive posting is noted, the poster has 24 hours to change or remove it is unacceptable, particularly if the comments to the posting are left. It presents a skewed vision of what is happening. To have a posting, then have a comment to that posting, and then to change the posting while leaving the comment in place means the comments are now out of context and later comments are out of context with earlier comments.

That, by the way, is one problem I have with people being able to edit comments. Someone could post an inflammatory comment, get a real sh*t storm started, then go back and change the original comment and pretend they never said it in the first place. An acceptable medium is to allow editing of a comment for say … 15 minutes. After that it is locked and can only be changed by the site admin. Otherwise you have people playing games with trying to change history in the comments.

But to get back on track, allowing someone to leave something that is just.plain.wrong on a site for 24 hours is unacceptable.

It is nice to participate in discussions like those that take place here without having to worry if one of the kids sits down on my lap while I am viewing the site. Language doesn’t bother me, but it is nice to have a site where I don’t have to worry about those young reader’s eyes straying onto the screen.

When I view this site, I am often inviting you into my home in a way and my kids might be within “eyeshot” of what you say. I could prevent them from being around the computer when I look at this site, but it is nice not having to worry about it.

My number one hero in my life, among human beings alive today, is my wife. She is a strong willed, loyal, moral person who stand up for what she believes in, and stands her ground against those who try to lay a trip on her, especially those who need their head examined due to their absurd, misguided point of view.

Among my other heroes I can confidently, and without reservation, list Michelle Malkin, that stalwart of truth, honesty, dignity, and justice. She is excellent at stating the truth, backing it up with substantiating facts, and refraining from ad hominem attacks, but choosing instead to wield the sword of truth to do her bidding!

Wonderful!

Bill O’Reilly appears to be growing as well, as he more often stands for truth and justice, and more often acknowledges the dishonesty and hatred of the left.

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I understand that you care, as do others… but can you tell me exactly why? Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2”?

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

It was an example Connie, you avoided the point… Though there are plenty of instances where that would be used in public.

I’ll give you an example more to your liking then. I stub my toe and shout “sh**!” or “fu**!”… Why is that any worse than saying “darn!” or “dang!”?

I’m not denying that society has gotten worse in the past couple generations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the acceptance of swears… though the reason they’ve been accepted may be part of the fact that anything taboo is now celebrated, and swears were once considered much more taboo. It’s been a free-for-all for acceptance of anything considered nontraditional and cutting edge, but I think “swearing” has been improperly tied in to it.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with. Just because someone somewhere along the line decided they would make a list of half a dozen or so words that were “swears”, despite having the same meanings as plenty of other words, we’re supposed to think those words are any different. They’re a series of letters put together and people don’t even know why it’s offensive, other than “that’s just the way it is”.

So again, I point you to my examples… and ask you why the ones with “swears” are worse than the others?

Michelle just needs to be given her own damn show on fox. I’m not saying this because I just learned that this is her site today lol..funny huh? I didn’t know. But I’m serious, she is a sharpie…and deserves a spot to expose things. Everyone I talk to is like..good lord she is really smart. It is always great when someone is a voice of reason..very few have it on tv…o’reilly and glenn beck being the only two I know of for my tastes.

Kind of off-topic but is anyone else peeved that Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay are being put on the same level on the right as Sean Penn and Rose O’Donnell on the left? I think this really shows a lot: You have a ton of loons and radicals on the left, and the most “far right” O’Reilly could get included Rush Limbaugh–a completely mainstream leader of the movement. There really is no far right in American politics (not talking about Nazism or anything like that). Whereas the far-left, with the Cindy Sheehans and Sean Penn’s and the other American haters, has been mainstreamed and is socially acceptable.

Forgot to add…What does this say? That what 50 years ago would have been considered liberal, is now moderate? That because things continue to move to the left, mainstream conservatism is considered “radical”? What does that say about (to use an O’Reilly term) the culture war and who is winning?

By the way, JWF, you’re doing good with your blog. Averaging over 300 hits a day after less than five months is a pretty good accomplishment for an anonymous blogger. But you’d do even better if you had an e-mail link so that people could send you tips. Trust me.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I think the use of some words, especially those that have to do with bodily functions, are very much a part of society’s current problems. Coarseness in speech implies a selfish lack of respect for others and leads to the type of behavior we see at Huffington Post, DK, and DU.

Bouley complains that, due to the number of thread posted and the number comments each thread generate, it is impossible to monitor the blog and respond quickly to inappropriate content. Excuse me, but that’s a very lame excuse.

A blog like HotAir is really a modern, limited version of a BBS and should be treated as such. There are people, called administrators, that can monitor the main thread posts and delete the threads that are inappropriate. There are people, called moderators, that can monitor the comments and delete the inappropriate ones. Users that continually violate the posting guidelines can be banned. DU has this format, as does the FR and other forums and they all use administrators and moderators. I see no problem with sites like HA or DK doing the same.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with.

In a polite, respectful society there are certain words and phrases that are deemed by common consensus as inappropriate to speak publicly, just as there are other modes of behavior that are inappropriate. These inappropriate behaviors can be, and in most cases are, regulated. This is done in the best interest of the society.

We regulate inappropriate behavior, like violence against another, as this type of behavior can be harmful to others if allowed. There is no difference between regulating public speech behaviors and other human behaviors. If swearing is harmful to sensibilities of others and/or leads to confrontation, it should not be allowed to occur in a public setting. There are some things you just don’t say in public.

You should not use foul or demeaning words or phrases in a public as as society has deemed this as inappropriate behavior and this behavior should be limited. Your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to use words and phrases that society has deemed inappropriate. You need to respect the sensibilities of others and that includes respecting the taboos on public speech. Failure to respect others is a good way to ensure that others will not respect you in return. Just how can any society hold together if respect is not a part of that society’s interactions? It can’t.

Ok, I’ve said this over and over in the comments here, but those comment threads that HuffPo has deleted are just the tip of the iceberg. I don’t why they only attracted attention for the Cheney and Tony Snow threads, because everyday there is some thread on there that’s just as vile. This thread about the Iran hostage situation from yesterday contains pages of jew-baiting, filthy bigoted personal insults, conspiracy theories, and America bashing.

“Bill, the internet is here to stay. It has great value–in fact it’s value is exponentially larger than your world of old school media. And it’s growing. Bill. Do you really think that television is still the giant in the room? Bill, it’s time to wake up. Or hush up.”

What Bill refuses to understand is that Internet sites are not trying to mimic Old School Media like his. Instead–they offer something different, something that changes instantly or expands without huge cash outlays and staff increases. I believe Bill is upset because in order for us to express our opinions, we don’t have to genuflect to his rules, his show and his interruptions.

Bill’s claim to fame on his web site (which according to him he can’t waste time on) is that he has an army of people monitoring it. Well, Bill….that is great! It’s also a barrier to entry to the rest of the world. What you’re saying is: You can’t have a worthwhile information system unless you’re a large corporate entity with vast resources–and all the bureacracy, bickering, backstabbing and waste that goes with it. Nice vision Bill.

By the way, I link to Bill’s site perhaps 5 times a year. I link here EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Bill…the very fact that I posted this should teach you something. Regrettably, I suspect you’re deaf to it. That saddens me because you were once a great advocate of the “little guy”. Or at least posed as such.

I used to really like and respect Bill. When I had a TV I watched his show every night. But his growing arrogance towards those of us who either operate web sites or use them as our main source of information has become “The Most Ridiculous” item of the day.

Perhaps I’ll link on over to FOX NEWS (I no longer own a TV so I can’t surf over) where I can undoubtely read the 1,000,000th news story on Anna Nicole Smith (RIP). FOX NEWS is at least 50% tabloid.

I can’t waste my time on that. I can spend my time here.

I came away from that clip not angry at Liberal hate for Tony Snow (in former posts I said that the Unholy Trinity to Liberals is comprised of: Truth, Logic, and Reason–hence their hatred towards Tony), but instead, I came away angry at Bill for his arrogance.

They always bring out the ‘freedom of speech’ balance, when it’s in their favor.

A guy now runs a pedophile site, with pictures of young girls (he takes at public parties/gatherings), and tips on how not to be caught by the police as a pedophile…the police and no one else can’t do anything about him because he has never been caught with anything illegal. It’s all freedom of speech.

Yes, the blogosphere needs standards if it wishes to be taken seriously. However, the MSM has lost all its standards.

Not a good night for the HuffPuffer, imho.

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Too nice. It’s the HuffPoo. Stench and rats. AP put it like it is, at the top. It comes over because it’s there, because it exists. They can’t have it both ways.

Sekoff must go through Dramamine by the case, with all the spinning he does. I watched this when it aired, and I literally snorted when he said “Michelle doesn’t allow comments on her site”. You know, I could have sworn that she did… And it’s uncanny how Bouley just happened to change his post himself, for no apparent reason, after leaving it up for 8 hours. “The blogosphere is self-correcting”, my ass–only when people like Sekoff get attention they don’t want. I already knew that the terms “Huffington Post” and “Quality Control” were mutually exclusive, but if you’re going to go on natiional television and claim the title of “Editor”, you might want to, I don’t know, edit or something. Douchebag.

Clearly the cockroaches are starting to run now that people are shining a light on them. It was nice of O’Reilly to name some of the companies that advertise on DKos–I wonder how they felt about getting mentioned in the context of the horrible comments about Tony Snow. Heh. Based on Sekoff’s defensiveness and the way that comments have been disabled on some HuffPoo topics recently, I suspect that HuffPoo will be making a few changes in an effort to protect themselves from association with the most vile of their commenters. If that happens it should be fun to watch, because the moonbats will scream “Censorship!” and bloody murder at not being able to post any filth they want. And then the worst of them will go off and infect some other site, making it not just evil but concentrated evil. Which will in turn give our side even more ammunition to show normal Americans how hate-filled and vile left-wing lunatics are.

Connie, I gotta bust you here… you’re being very evassive, because you obviously don’t have an answer:

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I understand that you care, as do others… but can you tell me exactly why? Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why do you have to say anything about that in public?

Closest I come is an IM to one of my daughters with “brb…bathroom.”

Crass is crass.

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

It was an example Connie, you avoided the point… Though there are plenty of instances where that would be used in public.

I’ll give you an example more to your liking then. I stub my toe and shout “sh**!” or “fu**!”… Why is that any worse than saying “darn!” or “dang!”?

I’m not denying that society has gotten worse in the past couple generations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the acceptance of swears… though the reason they’ve been accepted may be part of the fact that anything taboo is now celebrated, and swears were once considered much more taboo. It’s been a free-for-all for acceptance of anything considered nontraditional and cutting edge, but I think “swearing” has been improperly tied in to it.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with. Just because someone somewhere along the line decided they would make a list of half a dozen or so words that were “swears”, despite having the same meanings as plenty of other words, we’re supposed to think those words are any different. They’re a series of letters put together and people don’t even know why it’s offensive, other than “that’s just the way it is”.

So again, I point you to my examples… and ask you why the ones with “swears” are worse than the others?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I think the use of some words, especially those that have to do with bodily functions, are very much a part of society’s current problems. Coarseness in speech implies a selfish lack of respect for others and leads to the type of behavior we see at Huffington Post, DK, and DU.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM

You’re still not even attempting to explain why certain words are worse than others, and you’re being dishonest by attempting to bring it back in to the realm of bodily functions, when as I said that was simply an example, so I provided you with a non-bodily function one instead.

Well, RightWinged, I might suggest that if one wishes to initiate a discussion pertaining to linguistics and the history of cuss words, it might be wise to learn that ad hominem attacks, especially those that are completely off-the-wall, are probably not the best way to get one what one desires.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

Well, RightWinged, I might suggest that if one wishes to initiate a discussion pertaining to linguistics and the history of cuss words, it might be wise to learn that ad hominem attacks, especially those that are completely off-the-wall, are probably not the best way to get one what one desires.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Connie, where did I attack you? I repeatedly asked you a VERY simple question which you refused to answer. You finally at least made an attempt, but also went off on so many tangents the answer was tough to follow, but at least you attempted finally.

If it comes down to what society has dictated, then we’re in trouble. Society has dictated a lot of things I think most of us here don’t agree with.

I would answer one thing regarding your mention of saying things like “argh” when being shot, etc. Let’s stick with stubbing toe, because bullets vary quite a bit from eachother.

If you were a home schooled person who hadn’t heard “swears” hardly at all for your entire life, you might say “argh” or something (though I still think you’d likely say “shoot”, which according to you is somehow much better than saying “sh**”). But if you grew up in school where kids say these things out of rebellion, you heard them regularly to the point where they can easily become normal to you, even though you can completely control usage around teachers, parents and grandparents, etc.

I just find it dumb that anyone would be offended at me saying “sh**” but wouldn’t even notice if I said “shoot”… You may think this is perfectly fine because of “society”, but you can’t honestly tell me that makes any sense.

As for “Yo, b****”, that’s entirely different. “B****” is a term used to refer to female dogs in addition to being a derogatory term referring to women. I know at first glance this sounds like I’m then conceding your point, but it’s not and it’s tough to put this in to words. This word has a definition, which is why it was taken to be used to be derogatory towards women. It doesn’t mean “women”. But “sh**” means “crap” or “poop”, and “ass” means “butt” or “rear end” or…. This is where I totally lost interest in explaining this